I recall a few years back chatting with some Poms (english) about how now police can just willy-nilly (whenever they feel like it) come into one of their pubs (places where you drink beer) with a sniffer dog, looking for drugs. They can even do it on the street.
As i recall, recently cops we here in Australialalala have began a similar practice.
I'm under the understanding, that if one of these Sniffer Dogs gets a whiff of something on you and indicates this to the cop (the dog just sits down next to you), then the cop can search you.
I have an ethical problem with this. Does this not seem to violate some kindof Just-Cause thing? Do not the police need a warrant to search someone? What is the definitive purpose of a warrant anyway?
The way i see it, these dogs have superpowers. I consider a dog sniffing me to be attaining information about me that a normal person SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO. It's therefore an invasion of privacy, and the way i understand it this is WHY cops need warrants to search you - to protect your privacy from being invaded without just cause.
whether or not i have some illegal substance un-detectable on me (cept to a dog) is of no concern to anyone UNLESS THEY HAVE JUST-CAUSE TO SEARCH ME. This is a reason that evidence is sometimes thrown outof court - because it was discovered by a search without a warrant (I watch TV damnit!) To protect the rights to privacy of individuals within society the courts have deemed that any evidence discovered without just-cause and without a warrant is VOID and CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE.
if a cop barges into my home without a warrant and notices something illegal, there's nothing he can do about it. HE SHOULDN'T BE IN MY ★■◆●ing HOME. the evidence will be thrown outof court.
if a cop uses an xray machine to look into everyone's home until they see something illegal to charge something with - that is still not valid in court as they NEVER HAD JUST CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH IN THE FIRST PLACE. They wouldn't be able to get a warrant from that x-ray evidence, and they therefore wouldn't be able to go into that home to bust whoever was in there - even though they know something illegal is going on coz of the (illegally aquired) x-ray evidence.
How is a Sniffer Dog any different to indescriminant use of X-Ray Machines?
these things walk around with cops on the streets, they can smell EVERYONE around them. I don't see how it's any different than a cop walking around with X-Ray goggles.
Do you see my point?
How are sniffer dogs legal to use? why arn't they pulled up by "just-cause" and "lack of warrant" counterclaims?
why why why?
are they simply considered OK because the Dog doesn't report exactly WHAT he saw/smelt - just that he saw/smelt something bad? is this as far as my privacy is protected - that as long as specifics arn't mentioned that i can be searched without warrant & without just-cause?
I think sniffer dogs should be like anonymous tippers. you can't get a warrant on an anonymous tip (well... for now just ignore all the anti-terrorism laws that directly change that). yet anonymous tips do help, they tell the cops who to watch closely. and then if the cop spots something illegal happening then he can arrest the unlucky muppet.
if a dog sniffs something on me... if anything it should be indication for the cops to watch me closely, not to instantly search me for drugs as if i'm a dangerous criminal.
Sniffer-Dogs, Warrants, and Just-Cause
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Re: Sniffer-Dogs, Warrants, and Just-Cause
The same way a cop can search you if they smell dope on you in the middle of a street - They only need warrants if they need to access something that isn't publicly accessable or viewable. Pubs(as in Public House) generally are not private clubs.roid wrote:How are sniffer dogs legal to use? why arn't they pulled up by "just-cause" and "lack of warrant" counterclaims?
If they walk by a house, and see you beating someone thru the window of your house, they are obligated to respond.
Sniffer dogs are police officers just like the human cops themselves, and are therefore considered part of the general public. The odors of the drugs extend into the air, therefore you're not really hiding anything, even if humans can't smell them.
If they randomly searched people for concealed weapons, this would be another story.
If they randomly searched people for concealed weapons, this would be another story.
Re: Sniffer-Dogs, Warrants, and Just-Cause
but if a HUMAN can't smell it, how is that "publicly accessable or viewable"? The Dog's ultra sensitive sense of smell* is changing the lines of what is considered to be "publicly accessable and viewable". When the law says "publicly accessable"... it is referring to Homo-Sapiens yes? Just what exactly does "publicly accessable" now mean.... if it includes DOGS now, where has the line been drawn. does it also include machinery?fliptw wrote:The same way a cop can search you if they smell dope on you in the middle of a street - They only need warrants if they need to access something that isn't publicly accessable or viewable. Pubs(as in Public House) generally are not private clubs.roid wrote:How are sniffer dogs legal to use? why arn't they pulled up by "just-cause" and "lack of warrant" counterclaims?
If they walk by a house, and see you beating someone thru the window of your house, they are obligated to respond.
* the dog knows that my pants are made of hemp, and produces false positives as a result. A cop does not know my pants are made of hemp, the dog does. As strange as it sounds: what else does this dog know?
Sniffer dogs can track someone's natural body odor through the streets (they use dog's noses to track down people, eg: prison escapees. remember that). The information these dogs can harvest from you is no-one's business.
I'd look rather interesting attempting to exercise my supposedly PROTECTED right to privacy by walking around in a hermatically sealed bubble, but i would still have to change that every few kilometers to cover my TRACKS as the outside of the bubble would STILL pick up detectable material from my environment along the way. If i was justifiably a suspect for commiting a crime then that bubble could be entered into evidence and they could forensicly gather a bit of information from the materials they scrape off. But why bother when a dog can be trained to identify the smell of anything from our environment - and sniff "search" everybody on the street without a warrant.
Is anyone going to give me the "well, if you have nothing to hide..." line?
How close would that dog have to come to me for it to be considered a search? Would it have to invade my personal space... and would i have to allow it to? I wouldn't allow a member of the public to come up to me and sniff me, i'd consider that assault, not because i'm a sue happy person, but because it would give me an excuse to "defend" myself by kicking the loon's ass.DCrazy wrote:Sniffer dogs are police officers just like the human cops themselves, and are therefore considered part of the general public. The odors of the drugs extend into the air, therefore you're not really hiding anything, even if humans can't smell them.
If they randomly searched people for concealed weapons, this would be another story.
am i allowed to "defend" myself from a dog sniffing me?
-
CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
hit the nail on the head,DCrazy wrote:Sniffer dogs are police officers just like the human cops themselves, and are therefore considered part of the general public. The odors of the drugs extend into the air, therefore you're not really hiding anything, even if humans can't smell them.
If they randomly searched people for concealed weapons, this would be another story.
Police dog are Police officers, just because they are not Human make no difference, if a human officer smells pot on you that gives him and or his partner just cause to search you, so when a Dog Officer smells drugs on you that gives his "partner" just cause to search you, there is no difference they are both officers of the law. one just happens to have 4 legs and a better sense of smell. just like humans some have better senses than others, does that mean we should limit all drug searches to the to the standards of the officer that has the worst senses? to enforce law this way would be removing the officers tool, so whats next do we take away police radio's? maybe take away patrol cars. or even thier weapons. dogs are a tool of law enforcement and should be used as such
Re: Sniffer-Dogs, Warrants, and Just-Cause
The ONLY entity protecting your rights is YOU, AND YOU ALONE.roid wrote: I'd look rather interesting attempting to exercise my supposedly PROTECTED right to privacy...
That being said... people need not get near you to smell you...
If you are really worried about this, don't leave the house.
On the flip side, what would you propose as a method to help cops identify dangerous criminals in the general public(besides the fact you don't need to be a dangerous criminal to poses drugs)?
I'm sorry, i should have said RESPECTED rights. As in: if i PROTECT my own rights, and goto jail for it, then my rights are not RESPECTED by law, and the law therefore does not recognise my right to PROTECT those rights.Flip TW wrote:The ONLY entity protecting your rights is YOU, AND YOU ALONE.roid wrote:I'd look rather interesting attempting to exercise my supposedly PROTECTED right to privacy...
They are my rights, and if they are not RESPECTED (or either PROTECTED) then as far as the law is concerned - i have no rights.
do i have rights?
becides that... what's left? i'm sorry but didn't that end bit in brackets just make the whole point null and void?Flip TW wrote:On the flip side, what would you propose as a method to help cops identify dangerous criminals in the general public(besides the fact you don't need to be a dangerous criminal to poses drugs)?
If as you suggest, you want to identify dangerous criminals, then why are you searching for drugs?
"look out, i'm going to stab you with a joint!"
barking up the wrong tree.
these dogs are not sniffing for dangerous criminals.
No, the dogs are acting as police officers finding evidence in plain sight -- or plain smell might be an appropriate term.
You have no right to posess scheduled narcotics. If you don't accept that as a given, then your argument is flawed.
Now, whether or not said narcotics should be scheduled is an entirely different matter, one that you've argued many times in the past.
You have no right to posess scheduled narcotics. If you don't accept that as a given, then your argument is flawed.
Now, whether or not said narcotics should be scheduled is an entirely different matter, one that you've argued many times in the past.
i already touched on that point when i discussed how evidence can be thrown outof court if due process, just-cause, and warrants were not used.DCrazy wrote:No, the dogs are acting as police officers finding evidence in plain sight -- or plain smell might be an appropriate term.
You have no right to posess scheduled narcotics. If you don't accept that as a given, then your argument is flawed.
due process must be followed. it's important enough to throw extremely pivotal evidence outof court... why do you think this is? don't you agree with due process?
what i'm arguing is that a Dog sniffing me is not due process. just like forcing me through an xray machine on the street would not be due process. what i'm carrying is no-one's business. i don't have to declare my possessions to the cops everytime i leave my house. or do i?
actually the dog's nose is sensative enough to tell that i have had drugs in my pockets sometime before - but not nessesarily now.
"Possession is not concealing anything" indeed </sarcasm>. That's a false positive, one that would not have happened if my rights to privacy were being respected as they should be. Instead a dog's temperamental nose gets to decide who will and won't have rights today. Well hey i guess a dog doesn't care about skin colour or the style of my hair though, so that's an advantage.
but too bad by wearing hemp clothing your rights to privacy are null and void - according to Officer Doggy's all knowing nose.
"Possession is not concealing anything" indeed </sarcasm>. That's a false positive, one that would not have happened if my rights to privacy were being respected as they should be. Instead a dog's temperamental nose gets to decide who will and won't have rights today. Well hey i guess a dog doesn't care about skin colour or the style of my hair though, so that's an advantage.
but too bad by wearing hemp clothing your rights to privacy are null and void - according to Officer Doggy's all knowing nose.
I think it all boils down to probable cause. A cop cannot search the trunk of your car unless he see's something illegal in the cab of the car. In other words the cop has probable cause to search the trunk because of what he saw in the cars cab. If there was nothing in the cab, the cop cannot then demand to search the cars trunk merely on the hope there may be something illicit in the trunk. A sniffer dog by indicating a person is in possession of drugs gives the cop "probable cause" to search said person.